Is "bromance" shifting views of homosexuality?

The idea of “bromosexuality” discussed in this article was a new concept for me. While I am familiar with “bros” and “bromance,” I never thought of it as its own type of sexuality. It was interesting reading Ron Becker’s critiques of “bromance” as shown in several television shows and the shift that has come about due to the addition of this recently created discourse. While this new phase attempts to spread accepting ideas of homosexuality, it fails as it further emphasizes homosexuality as unordinary.

The male characters in the television shows Becker describes show these emotions toward one another but constantly defend their feelings. As Becker explains, the characters will declare their bro crushes for one another but will then back up these statements by saying, “no homo” or “I’m not homosexual…not that anything’s wrong with that.” By defending their strong feelings for one another, these shows continue to prove the unnatural qualities of homosexuality.

Why is it that women can freely express their affection for one another but men must provide some sort of explanation? Because sensitivity and emotions are linked so closely with being feminine that men consider such feelings to be un-masculine, and thus, “homosexual.” If bromance could be generally accepted and men stopped defending affectionate feelings toward one another, then maybe society could finally understand homosexuality as a normal sexual orientation that needs no explanation. 

Brorannasaurs Rex

Thesaurus for the word "Bro"(Lolbrary):

Bros

Broski

Bromo

Brotien

Brodeo

Brohan

Brochill

Brosicle

Han Brolo

Brofessor

Broba Fett

Brohan Solo

Bromosapien

Bro Montana

Broseph Stalin

Abroham Lincoln

Brorack Bromama

Bromance is such an interesting area of study because the conflict between hyper-masculine traits and the idea of homosexuality has been dated throughout history. While reading Becker's essay, I couldn't but help but think of the Japanese warrior class, the samurai, and the Greek warring state, Sparta. Both of these separate cultures epitomize the idea of masculinity, or at least Hollywood does, with the movie "300" and Tom Cruise's "The Last Samurai." The common theme behind these movies seem to concentrate on the close bond these men form through tradition and long hours of training....so, in short, bromances. I wasn't reminded of these particular social classes because of their bravery, awesome military skills and blah blah blah, but instead I found it interesting that both of these social classes had a history of homosexuality. I am sure Tom Cruise and Gerald Butler would have passed on the role if their movies were to take a very historically accurate perspective. 

For the Japanese samurai, "it was customary for a boy in the wakashū age category to undergo training in the martial arts by apprenticing to a more experienced adult man. The man was permitted, if the boy agreed, to take the boy as his lover until he came of age; this relationship, often formalized in a "brotherhood contract",^[9] was expected to be exclusive, with both partners swearing to take no other (male) lovers. This practice, along with clerical pederasty, developed into the codified system of age-structured homosexuality known as shudō, abbreviated from wakashūdo, the "way (do) of wakashū".^[10] The older partner, in the role of nenja, would teach the wakashū martial skills, warrior etiquette, and the samurai code of honor, while his desire to be a good role model for his wakashū would lead him to behave more honorably himself; thus a shudō relationship was considered to have a "mutually ennobling effect".^[11] In addition, both parties were expected to be loyal unto death, and to assist the other both in feudal duties and in honor-driven obligations such as duels and vendettas."

The warring state of Sparta saw homosexuality as an essential cornerstone of their society. They believed that their close relationships that had been developed off the battlefield would carry on into battle, allowing them to have a tactical advantage over their enemies. "Like other institutions in Plutarch’s Sparta, homosexuality had as its end the preservation of the state. Lycurgus believed that love ties between men who were comrades-in-arms increased allegiance to their ranks. In a word, homosexual love promoted battlefield determination -- lovers joined in the battle field side-by-side, the lawgiver felt, made for better soldiering -- and all the better fostered the love of state."

I know that Bromance differs in these historical societies in a way because Bromance seems to embrace many of the same attributes, but at the same time deny any homosexual tendencies or allusions. Another urbandictionary word that I can easily associate with bromance is "TFM" or total frat move and it is used to describe someone performing a hyper masculine action with no homosexual allusion. 

No homo!

Bromances seem like such a silly concept to me. It seems so silly that men are unable to have close bonds with other men because homophobia still widely exists. I constantly hear guys shouting out "No homo!" everytime they want to show some sense of emotion. But why do they feel as though they have to do so? However, I feel the exact opposite is true of women. I feel like there are many situations in which we are encouraged to act like lesbians, and receive positive feedback for it. We can walk down the side walk holding hands if we want to, and I tell my best friends I love them all the time without having to reassure everyone that I am indeed straight.  But men do not really have any comparable activities. As mentioned in the article, the closest thing they have to bonding is competitions to see who can out-man the other. And if men do engage in other bonding activities, they get accused of being gay, or immediately make it clear that they are not.

We often talk about all the double that women are caught up in, but not many take the time to think about how men are also affected by double binds. The author mentions in the article that men have to be different from women, be the dominant gender and be heterosexual but they also need homosocial bonding which is nearly impossible when they are always in competition to be the manliest and have the fewest feelings. I can't wait for the day when it is okay for men to not only have feelings, but to show them, and for it to be known that you can still be masculine while doing so.

Bromance Psychology

                  What interested me most in this article were the four key assumptions outlined by Scott Kiesling that structured hegemonic masculinity, and how some of those key structures contradict each other creating tension and conflicting desires.  Psychologically speaking, the structures can be labeled cognitions: mental ideologies/process influenced by experience and culture that shape believes and, to an extent, actions.  When two cognitions are in conflict it creates cognitive dissonance.  Cognitive dissonance occurs here when men are torn between wanting male solidarity and companionship while simultaneously upholding heterosexuality and dominance (strength and independence).

                    The uncomfortable feeling associated with cognitive dissonance can be relieved by one of three options: change first cognition to fit the second, change second cognition to fit the first, or develop a third circumventing cognition (“I think/do…. but it is ok because….”).  The label of “bromance” described in this article fits the third option.  Men are allowed to have close friends fulfilling their need for male intimacy without jeopardizing their heterosexual privileges because it fits under the playful and cultural definition of a bromance.  Culturally approved and projected as desirable in media representations starting in the 1990's, bromance can be seen as a lifeline for men to manage all four hegemonic male structures.  

                  However, as the author states, there are many pitfalls in this type of relationship.  Heterosexual men still have to work hard to be accepting of gay society without seeming gay themselves.  They also have to establish boundaries in bromances to safe guard against outside perception of gay relations, despite the positive associations with gays, because it is still essentially a heterosexual bond.  The notion of heterosexual bonds in terms of gay relationships in bromance doesn't disguise the fact that heterosexuality is still considered a more privileged sexual orientation.  The struggles faced by men to balance their changing and often conflicting cognitions is the common theme of the article.

The Irony of "Bromance"

Like Sasha, I also have a problem with many of the examples of bromance that were brought up. What exactly constitutes a bromance, and what makes that different from a "normal" friendship between two guys?

I agree with the author that the show Bromance does, at times, establish itself as gay-friendly. For example, having Michael on the show is not an issue at all and is depicted and received as natural. However, the show also proves to be the opposite (for example, the "awkward" and "uncomfortable" hottub eliminations).

There seem to be some Foucauldian elements here that would prove that Jenner's show is not as gay-friendly as it may seem. The whole bromance theme that we see in the show as well as the times it pops up in sitcoms like Seinfeld further emphasizes the social stigma attached to homosexuality and that we must classify ourselves as gay or straight and perform our sexuality as such. Just the fact that we had to coin the term "bromance" suggests that homosexuality is still not as "normal" as heterosexuality. The term suggests that there is a grey area between male homosexuality and heterosexuality, but that men in this grey area are not (I repeat, NOT) gay.

Men in these shows get very defensive and make sure others know that they are not (God forbid!!!) gay. They are constantly checking themselves to make sure that their friendship or bromance is not crossing the metaphorical line between buddies and lovers. They often say things like, "We're not gay... not that there's anything wrong with that." ...Except that the characters in the examples given go out of their way to explain and prove to others that they are straight.

If our society was completely free of homophobia, there would be no desire for straight men to prove to others that they are straight and not gay. I even think that the term "bromance" would not exist.

No bro, I Love You!

Yo bro! Bromances have become an object of great attention and to some extent ridicule within the media. Movies like ‘I love you man’ show the humor in men trying to find friendship, but they also show how there is a heteronormative discourse is still prevalent in our society. Becker’s article addressing the current bromance phenomenon I think points out many critical issues that still underlie men’s' sexuality and stereotypes in media texts. The article focuses a lot of analysis on the show ‘Bromance’ where Brody Jenner has a competition to find his next best friend or ‘bro.’ The main thing I found to be very interesting about the article was that bromances are used as a way to allow men to express emotions while maintaining their heterosexuality. Yet, there is still a need for theses ‘bros’ to reinforce the fact that they are not gay, but at the same time okay with gay individuals. When a contestant on ‘Bromance’ decided to leave the show, because he felt like he didn’t quite fit in. He was openly gay and many of the challenges required picking up ‘chicks’ and he lived in a house that had women’s’ panties displayed on the walls. When he left many of the straight guys went to say how great of a guy he was, just that he didn’t fit in, and that they had nothing against gay men. They acknowledge that they are not against gay people, but that this individual didn’t fit in with their group of straight men trying to get friendship. I think having bromances makes appropriate behaviors for men much more complicated. They are told it’s okay to show emotion, but when seen together people automatically think that they are gay. I don’t think bromances are liberating because of the constant reaffirmations that the ‘bros’ on Bromance made, along with other examples Becker identifies. They are straight, but can get teary-eyed during their bro-elimination ceremony. I think bromances just make identifying what behavior is socially appropriate for men even more confusing for men. They now have to explain their actions and friendships when they hang out with other men.

Ahh, the Bromance

I had a real problem with a lot of the examples that were brought up in this article, but I’ll try to keep myself from ranting. To begin with, however, I would like to ask a simple question: why is it that as soon as intimate male bonds are depicted on television a name must be assigned to this concept in order to draw a distinction between friendship and homosexuality? As far as I know, no term has been coined regarding close female bonds – we don’t feel the need to announce to the world that WE ARE NOT LESBIANS. Why is this cultural phenomenon of “bromance” so easily condoned by the media and by society in general?

Our writer begins by stating that homosexuality has increasingly become more acceptable by society over the past couple decades…so why is there such a need to clarify this difference? The real problem to me is that, it seems, men believe that by showing emotion, care, and consideration for one another they are emasculating themselves. Close male bonds have always existed: why is it then that so recently men need an “excuse” to behave a certain way? Why is it that now they fear being mistaken as gay? A logical explanation I suppose would be that gay characters have received greater roles recently, or that acceptance of homosexuality IS in fact more common and thus men are fearful of being “seduced” into this lifestyle, as this is one of the criticisms of homosexuality that consistently comes up. To me, it’s just ridiculous that this term even exists. Men can just be friends – they don’t need to be “cool” by defining their friendships as “bromances.”

As for the reality TV show Bromance that acted as the central example in this essay, please give me a break and PLEASE tell me that nobody actually watched the show. This just seems like a pathetic excuse for a celebrity male to gain attention, to promote advertisements, and to perpetuate the stereotypes that are a result of heteronormativity. Congratulations – you had a gay contestant…you didn’t kick him off the show. Nonetheless, the contests that were conducted are not only misogynistic but they are also reinforcing the dominant discourse of the heterosexual male.

Sorry, but I couldn’t really help from ranting.